Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DOH 2006 National Statistics (UK). Population. http:// www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=949 (accessed 31 Mach 2011). Ellis 2005 Ellis G, Langhorne P. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older hospital patients. British Medical Bulletin 2005; 71:45–59. Evans 2001 Evans A, Perez I, Harraf H, Melbourn A, Steadman J, Donaldson N, et al.Can differences in management processes explain different outcomes between stroke unit and stroke team care?. Lancet 2001;358:86–92. Folstein 1975 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1975;12(3):189–98. Handoll 2009 Handoll HHG, Cameron ID, Mak JCS, Finnegan TP. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007125.pub2] Hayden 2006 Hayden JA, Cote P, Bombardier C. Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006;144:427–37. Langhorne 2005 Langhorne P, Dey P, Woodman M, Kalra L, Wood- Dauphinee S, Patel N, et al.Is stroke unit care portable? A systematic review of the clinical trials. Age and Ageing 2005; 34:324–30. Mathews 1984 Mathews DA. Dr Marjory Warren and the origin of British geriatrics. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1984; 32:253–8. Mathias 1986 Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients; the “Get Up and Go” test. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1986;67:387–9. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Nikolaus 1999 Nikolaus T, Specht-Leible N, Bach M, Oster P, Schuerf G. A randomised trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment and home intervention in the care of hospitalised patients. Age & Ageing 1999;28:543–50. OECD 2004 OECD Health. Ageing societies and the Looming Pension Crisis. Paris: OECD, 2004. Pound 1999 Pound P, Sabin C, Ebrahim S. Observing the process of care: a stroke unit, elderly care unit and general medical ward compared. Age & Ageing 1999;28(5):433–40. Rubenstein 1991 Rubenstein LZ, Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland D. Impact of geriatric evaluation and management programs on defined outcomes: overview of the evidence. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1991; Vol. 39:8S–16S. Stuck 1993 Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland D, Adams J, Rubenstein LZ. Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Lancet 1993;342:1032–6. SUTC 2007 Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD000197.pub2] Van Craen 2010 Van Craen K, Braes T, Wellens N, Denhaerynck K, Flamaing J, Moons P, et al.The effectiveness of inpatient geriatric evaluation and management units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2010;58:83–92. Wood 2001 Wood R, Bain MRS. The Health and Well-being of Older People in Scotland: Insights from National Data.. The health and well-being of older people in Scotland: insights from national data. Edinburgh: Information and Statistics Division, 2001. ∗ Indicates the major publication for the study 20
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F S T U D I E S Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID] Applegate 1990 Methods Year: 1990 Location: Memphis, USA (1500-bed rehabilitation hospital) Team/ward?: ward Timing: stepdown Trial methodology: randomised controlled trial Participants Numbers (total): 155 Mean age: 78.8 Male:female ratio: 24% male Inclusion criteria: over 65, at risk for nursing home placement and/or functional impairment Some patients under 65 were considered if they met the criteria Exclusion criteria: unstable medical conditions; short-term monitoring required; survival less than 6 months; serious chronic mental impairment; nursing home placement inevitable Patient selection criteria: selected Interventions Team members: specialist nurse, ward nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, speech and language pathologists, audiologists, psychologists Team organisation: comprehensive assessment, multidisciplinary meetings at least weekly, regular use of standard assessment tools Outcomes Outcomes: mortality, ADL, days spent in nursing homes, mood, and cognition at 6 months and 1 year Trial conclusions: improved function and reduced nursing home admission Notes Risk of bias Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer-generated random number sequences stratified by patient risk of nursing home admission Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No data available Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Unclear risk Patient and staff were not blinded to allocation. Outcome assessments were conducted by staff not involved in routine care but blinding of outcome assessors to treatment allocation is not clear. 21
Page 1 and 2: Comprehensive geriatric assessment
Page 3 and 4: [Intervention Review] Comprehensive
Page 5 and 6: A third has evaluated the subgroup
Page 7 and 8: AARP Ageline (from 1978 to April 20
Page 9 and 10: Figure 2. Comprehensive geriatric a
Page 11 and 12: esults are only reported where sign
Page 13 and 14: Table 1. Cost analysis Cost Analysi
Page 15 and 16: these subgroups (teams with needs-r
Page 17 and 18: Again, analysis suggested that wher
Page 19 and 20: an acute care hospital. Canadian Me
Page 21: Liem 1986 {published data only} Lie
Page 25 and 26: Asplund 2000 (Continued) Random seq
Page 27 and 28: Cohen 2002 GEMC Methods This is the
Page 29 and 30: Cohen 2002 UCOP (Continued) Selecti
Page 31 and 32: Counsell 2000 (Continued) Intervent
Page 33 and 34: Fretwell 1990 (Continued) Study pro
Page 35 and 36: Hogan 1987 (Continued) Notes Risk o
Page 37 and 38: Kircher 2007 Methods Year: 2007 Loc
Page 39 and 40: Landefeld 1995 (Continued) Allocati
Page 41 and 42: Naughton 1994 (Continued) Intervent
Page 43 and 44: Nikolaus 1999 plus ESD (Continued)
Page 45 and 46: Powell 1990 (Continued) Random sequ
Page 47 and 48: Rubenstein 1984 Methods Year: 1984
Page 49 and 50: Saltvedt 2002 (Continued) Random se
Page 51 and 52: Thomas 1993 (Continued) Patient sel
Page 53 and 54: White 1994 (Continued) Other bias U
Page 55 and 56: (Continued) Cole 1991 Evaluation of
Page 57 and 58: D A T A A N D A N A L Y S E S Compa
Page 59 and 60: 2.6 Teams (stepdown assessment) Com
Page 61 and 62: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 CGA vers
Page 63 and 64: (... Continued) Study or subgroup T
Page 65 and 66: (... Continued) Study or subgroup T
Page 71 and 72: Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 CGA ver
Page 73 and 74:
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 CGA ver
Page 75 and 76:
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 CGA vers
Page 77 and 78:
(... Continued) Study or subgroup F
Page 79 and 80:
(... Continued) Study or subgroup E
Page 81 and 82:
(... Continued) Study or subgroup E
Page 83 and 84:
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 CGA vers
Page 85 and 86:
10. *“outcome and process assessm
show all

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?